Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Skeezix
The death penalty is ineffective at preserving social norms, and we'd have to be blind to the historical evidence that it would convince anyone who would do murder to make a different choice; as deterrents only work on people who harbor the belief that they might not get away with it. However, the death penalty needs to exist; if only to cull those who's acts are so heinous that society/judicial system must accept its own failures, and expunge them. Bottom line is for serial/repeat/compulsive murderers; a dead person can't kill again. At some level as a civilaztion we need to either kill that person, or bear the responsibility for violent and depraved acts that these individuals commit. In mind the question is not: did Ted Bundy deserve to die, but did we need to kill him to prevent further loss of life? I
|
This sounds philosophical but none of it makes any goddamned sense. The part I bolded is especially nonsensical: Civilization doesn't bear the responsibility for the actions of serial killers or other murderers, the murderers themselves do. To think otherwise verges on collective punishment, which is utterly despicable and is never justified in any scenario whatsoever.